The word lend is mentioned thirteen times in the Bible. Ten of those times are in the Old Testament and three times in the New Testament. The first verse with 'lend' appears in Exodus 22:25, "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury." Second mention of 'lend' is in Leviticus 25:35-37, "And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." I like chapter twenty-five of Leviticus as it also describes how land in the suburbs shall be kept free for the poor. Verse 34, "But the field of the suburbs of their cities may not be sold; for it is their perpetual possession."Blue Letter Bible search results for lend, KJV.

There are two results in the Kings James Version for 'lender'. Proverbs 22:7, "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." Isaiah chapter twenty four is a prophetic word, verse two, "And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him."

'Repay' is in the KJV Bible seven times. This is one of my favorite verses as it speaks of justice, Job 41:11, "Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine."

"For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.""Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:""The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation.""Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.""If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

Seems to me that each individual is endowed by their creator with certain, self-evident, unalienable rights; and that those rights are sustained by the recognition, respect and the bearing of the responsibilities inherent in those rights; to defend the means to exercise those rights; not the least of which is the defense of thier neighbors rights.

Now where one sees that their neighbor is in need; one should provide for that need to the extent of their means. This is called charity...

The cool part about that, is that it is the neighbor's responsibility to make sure, to the extent of their means, that they do not undermine or usurp THEIR neighbors rights through the failure to bear their own responsibilities...

See how that works?

At no time does one's needs become the responsibility of someone else... but where another sees one is in need... it's their responsibility to help, within their means to do so.

Thus the imutable Principles of Nature provides for what?

It provides for the inherent accountability common to inter-personal relationships... Wants are thus not conflated with needs... and the standards of the giving are that common to the giver; and not based upon those of the charity case.

Thus the needy are NOT entitled to draw upon the responsibility of the giver; to deplete his means to care for his responsibilities... they are not, by their very existence entitled to the product of another's labor; and this by virtue of THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITIES... which provides that where they fail to bear those responsibilities; they forfeit the rights which those responsibilities sustain.

Now where it is said to be otherwise; the NEEDS... become subjective to the charity case; the very concept of 'need' becomes a pervasive excuse to take whatever sets them distinct from their neighbor... until eventually; the notion of need expands to the point includes the conjuring of their neighbors mind... Which is where we're at today...

The sense of entitlement has grown to include the intellectual property of their neighbor; so depraved are these charity cases, that they feel compelled to demand that THAT WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO THEM FOR FREE... CAN BE TAKEN WITHOUT SO MUCH AS ATTRIBUTING CREDIT TO THE GIVER... take the thoughts of another and claim them as their own.

It is not sufficient that the giver provided them with the means to use their ideas, at no expense to them, except the effort required to find it; the NEED is such that where they find it; they reject that such was even given to them and demand that the gift was of their own making.

Which demonstrates in finality, that Left-think is an unsound; thus unsustainable species of reasoning; and that such is simply a function of evil.

I am not a Christian, but I have read the Bible twice. And I note that throughout the Bible, the theme is that we are our brothers keeper.

One might think of it as a form of social insurance. After all, none of us know from day to day, that we will not be the one in need. A sickness, a disaster, fire, flood, earthquake, and all that we had is gone. And we are dependent on others.

All of the civilized nations have put this philosophy into the laws and social services of their nation. After all, most, once recovered from whatever knocked them down, will once again be productive citizens.

Now there are all too many on this board that would return to a Dickensonian world where all that were in bad straights were dependent on charity. And kept in a permenant state of poverty. That is not a world that I would like at all.

I am not a Christian, but I have read the Bible twice. And I note that throughout the Bible, the theme is that we are our brothers keeper.

One might think of it as a form of social insurance. After all, none of us know from day to day, that we will not be the one in need. A sickness, a disaster, fire, flood, earthquake, and all that we had is gone. And we are dependent on others.

All of the civilized nations have put this philosophy into the laws and social services of their nation. After all, most, once recovered from whatever knocked them down, will once again be productive citizens.

Now there are all too many on this board that would return to a Dickensonian world where all that were in bad straights were dependent on charity. And kept in a permenant state of poverty. That is not a world that I would like at all.

I am not a Christian, but I have read the Bible twice. And I note that throughout the Bible, the theme is that we are our brothers keeper.

One might think of it as a form of social insurance. After all, none of us know from day to day, that we will not be the one in need. A sickness, a disaster, fire, flood, earthquake, and all that we had is gone. And we are dependent on others.

All of the civilized nations have put this philosophy into the laws and social services of their nation. After all, most, once recovered from whatever knocked them down, will once again be productive citizens.

Now there are all too many on this board that would return to a Dickensonian world where all that were in bad straights were dependent on charity. And kept in a permenant state of poverty. That is not a world that I would like at all.

The Bible has it right on our obligations to our fellow man.

Click to expand...

Well sure... because "need" is defined in the Objective Dictionary of Ethereal Terms Applied in the Pursuit of Social/Economic Justice, as: Folks who've suffered unforeseen, catastrophic disasters; having lost everything..."

And that's why Rocks has come to represent that the responsibility to fulfill the 'need' of our brother's catastrophic losses, falls to us... because that's all that Social Justice is really asking for...

The rumors that they demand that our brother should measure no compensation below the subjective threshold which they determione sufficient; without regard to our brother's means to contribute; that our brother should receive free-healthcare paid for by another; that our sister should have her most critical needs paid and those of her children; that our siblings should be provided mortgages to secure their housing needs despite their deficient means... and so on and so forth... are irrelevant.

What old Rocks is simply saying is that Progressives recognize that when circumstances are dire... we should rise to help a brother up.

And isn't that only reasonable?

I think it is... except for all of the never ending needs inherent in all the OTHER Social/Economic Justice CRAP, that Old Rocks can't really mention and remain remotely credible.

I am not a Christian, but I have read the Bible twice. And I note that throughout the Bible, the theme is that we are our brothers keeper.

One might think of it as a form of social insurance. After all, none of us know from day to day, that we will not be the one in need. A sickness, a disaster, fire, flood, earthquake, and all that we had is gone. And we are dependent on others.

All of the civilized nations have put this philosophy into the laws and social services of their nation. After all, most, once recovered from whatever knocked them down, will once again be productive citizens.

Now there are all too many on this board that would return to a Dickensonian world where all that were in bad straights were dependent on charity. And kept in a permenant state of poverty. That is not a world that I would like at all.

The Bible has it right on our obligations to our fellow man.

Click to expand...

Well sure... because "need" is defined in the Objective Dictionary of Ethereal Terms Applied in the Pursuit of Social/Economic Justice, as: Folks who've suffered unforeseen, catastrophic disasters; having lost everything..."

And that's why Rocks has come to represent that the responsibility to fulfill the 'need' of our brother's catastrophic losses, falls to us... because that's all that Social Justice is really asking for...

The rumors that they demand that our brother should measure no compensation below the subjective threshold which they determione sufficient; without regard to our brother's means to contribute; that our brother should receive free-healthcare paid for by another; that our sister should have her most critical needs paid and those of her children; that our siblings should be provided mortgages to secure their housing needs despite their deficient means... and so on and so forth... are irrelevant.

What old Rocks is simply saying is that Progressives recognize that when circumstances are dire... we should rise to help a brother up.

And isn't that only reasonable?

I think it is... except for all of the never ending needs inherent in all the OTHER Social/Economic Justice CRAP, that Old Rocks can't really mention and remain remotely credible.

Click to expand...

I recognize that some within the progressive movement have valid issues. Some on the other hand are taking these issues way too far. They are pushing and forcing nations into economic situations which will make these nations even more subservient and dependent upon the few elitists for their financial livelihood. I started with the issue of lending because most of the social injustice in the world is derived from money the changers and their incessant greed.

It makes no difference if you are right or left, democrat or republican. Most should be able to see that by letting a few mega corporations banks and financiers run the world; this is not working out very well. Why is that? Do the money changers make their decisions on a daily basis or do they plan ahead to set the stage for what they ultimately desire to accomplish? Their only effective tool is fear. Fear of being broke, fear of being drug into a war, fear of not having the capital resources to pay our debts.

If you assist a person with a hand up then it really is not a hand out when that person also becomes a productive citizen whether they do so on a large scale or a small scale. The biggest abuse we have and a continual drain on capital resources is at the national and international level. There is not a corporation out there that is not run on borrowed capital. None. They borrow the most and pay the least. Most are only required to pay the interest on their notes to the money changers. I just learned a new phrase yesterday and it's called fractional banking. It is our downfall and I don't think any knowledgeable person can truthfully deny that it's not. I was taught if you ain't got it don't try to spend what you ain't got.

On the issue of providing medical help for those in need, we probably both agree that the route being taken is not a good thing. This is one of the reasons I have been trying to assimilate all of the information about chemical and GM/GMO pushes to expand the control that a few corporations have on our food chain. If we have food products in the system that add to creating more issues of ill health then everyone pays for the bad health of the other in several different ways. This is regardless of who is footing the bill. Obviously the bankers are investing in bad health just like they invest in wars and then lend to both sides. You know what the real kicker is; they get a ten for one exchange in return and collect the interest on top of that. The money changers will loan to a company, invest in purchasing shares in a competing company, call the loan on the former and profit from both. They are collecting on both ends. Sweet deal wouldn't you say? The thing that really rips me and it should everyone is that these schmucks are using our tax dollars against us. It's called the Federal Reserve Bank.

Ninety-one percent of the world's GM/GMO seed is now controlled by Monsanto (they are working on the trees next). Seventy percent of the chemicals used in the world are Monsanto's. Sixty percent of the pork in the United States is controlled by four companies. By the year 2000, four cattle processing companies owned eighty percent of the slaughter houses and only five food retailers controlled nearly fifty percent of food retail sales. Corporations controlled ninety eight percent of the poultry in the United States. The top ten pharmaceutical companies controlled forty-eight percent of the world market for humans and sixty percent of the world market of pharmaceuticals for animals. These figures came from Globalization Inc. for the year 2000.

Put that much power in to the hands of a few and what do you have?

You have a few people that now have so much control and power that they can unilaterally create conditions that will effect generations either negatively or positively whichever way they want to steer it. They easily strip wealth from the unsuspecting and get away with it. Global climate credits and the carbon credit tax schemes are fine examples of this. They create a non-existent problem in order to panic a market and then influence their desired social changes that line their own pockets. All the while not even considering that they should be looking at the pollution caused by their own corporations first. They have free reign to run wild and we all pay the bill in health, labor and life.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!